Here. An excerpt:
Each of the three standard arguments used to brush off such substantive criticism is more inane than the next. Let’s debunk them one at a time:
Nonsensical Argument #1: A mascot is designed to honor, not lampoon, an ethnicity
To know this is idiotic is to replace a Native American mascot with a caricatured mascot depicting another ethnic group — and then ask if that would really be considered an honor. Would anyone seriously defend a team called the Boston Blacks or the New York Jews, each with mascots of ethnic stereotypes? Probably not (sure, Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish embody a non-Native American cultural stereotype, but two wrongs don’t make a right). Nobody would or should defend those hypothetical names because we know what a mascot really is — we know its whole purpose is to draw attention through flamboyant spectacle. We also know, then, that when we turn an ethnicity into a mascot, we are not-so-subtly insinuating that the group is inherently an attention-grabbing spectacle of flamboyance — that is, we are insinuating that its otherness is so alien, strange or ridiculous, that its people are fit to be presented as glorified clowns. That’s not an honor — that’s an insult.
Nonetheless, the mascot-as-hero conceit is frequently trotted out by a majority culture desperate to continue the minstrelization of minorities via athletic logos. As the University of Akron’s Dana M. Williams reports, surveys show that “one of the most common storylines about the (UND) nickname offered by white supporters is: ‘It’s intended as an honor because Native people were brave fighters.’” To this, Williams offers a powerful rejoinder:
Such a claim minimizes the racism inherent in a predominantly white university using a discriminated-against racial minority as its sports nickname. The statement also reinforces the misleading stereotypes that all Native Americans were brave and were fighters, thereby making all Native people targets of an externally imposed “honor.” Ironically, in the past, attributing the labelfighting to Native Americans would have been perceived as highly negative, and would have helped to justify attacks by the U.S. Army on Native Americans, as well as white settler incursions into Native territory.
‘Nuff said.
Turtle Talk 
Yes, I remember when I was a student at Fort Lewis College in Durango Colorado in the late 90s and there was discussion on this subject. Related to it was a very disturbing statue caricature in the town to which the same argument was connected. It was the local Native Americans who supported these ideas and stereotypes and I was so disgusted if I could have I would have given up my Native American heritage ( at least for that moment).
I believe this to be so true! It is the same with Haloween costumes! If it is racially unacceptiable to go out dressed as a black person (with black shoe polish on your skin, dreads, and speak with a “black” accent) then it is unacceptiable to dress as a Native American (carrying a tomahawk, wearing a war bonnet, and paint ing your face with “war paint”)!